In the Article 370 case hearing, the Union Government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has absolutely no intention to interfere with the special provisions applicable to North Eastern states or other parts of India.
Recording this statement made on behalf of the Centre, the Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant disposed of an intervention application filed by an Arunachal Pradesh politician.
The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it will not touch the special provisions for the North Eastern states or any other parts of the country while defending its decision to abrogate Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir. The Centre also said that it is ready to answer all questions raised by the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the move.
Article 370 was a temporary provision that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, allowing it to have its own constitution, flag and autonomy over certain matters. It was revoked by the Centre on August 5, 2019, through a presidential order that also bifurcated the state into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The petitioners have argued that Article 370 was an integral part of the Constitution and could not be abrogated without the consent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They have also contended that the presidential order violated the basic structure of the Constitution and the principle of federalism.
The Centre, on the other hand, has maintained that Article 370 was a historical blunder that hampered the development and integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India. It has also asserted that the presidential order was in accordance with the Constitution and did not require the concurrence of the statgislature, which was dissolved in 2018.
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir. The bench, headed by Justice N V Ramana, has reserved its verdict on the issue of referring the matter to a larger bench. The hearing will resume on Thursday.
“The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, submitted his arguments before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in response to the contentions raised by Mr. Manish Tiwari, Senior Advocate, appearing for a politician from Arunachal Pradesh. Mr. Tiwari expressed his apprehensions about the possibility of abrogation of the special provisions applicable to the North Eastern states under the Constitution of India, in a similar manner as the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was repealed by the Central Government. He drew the attention of the Court to the provisions of Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which confer special rights and privileges to certain states and regions in the North East, and submitted that any attempt to dilute or remove these provisions would be violative of the constitutional scheme and the federal structure of India.
Mr Tiwari, Senior Advocate, submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that even a slight apprehension in the periphery of India can have grave repercussions for national security and integrity. He referred to the ongoing situation in Manipur, where the Court is seized of the matter relating to the alleged extrajudicial killings by the security forces. He stated that the Court must be vigilant and cautious in dealing with such sensitive issues.
However, before he could proceed further, the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, intervened and clarified his position on behalf of the Central Government. He stated that he had specific instructions from the Government to assert that there is a clear distinction between the temporary provision of Article 370, which was abrogated by the Government in 2019, and the special provisions for the North Eastern states under the Constitution of India. He assured the Court that the Central Government has no intention whatsoever to touch or alter any part of the Constitution that gives special provisions to the North East and other regions of India.”
The main issue of the case, which is the interpretation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The arguments of Tiwari, who is one of the petitioners challenging the validity of Article 370, and the Solicitor General (SG), who is representing the Central Government. Tiwari claims that his submission has a broader implication on other special provisions applicable to different parts of India, while the SG denies any such intention or apprehension on behalf of the Government.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud, who is heading the bench hearing the case. The CJI rejects Tiwari’s argument and says that there is no need to deal with hypothetical situations or fears. The CJI asserts that the court is only concerned with the specific provision of Article 370 and its validity, and not with any other special provisions or their impact.
The outcome of the case, is that the court disposes of the interlocutory application (IA) filed by Tiwari, which sought to bring in other special provisions into the scope of the case. The paragraph also states that the court relies on the statement of the SG, who assures that the Government has no intention to affect any other special provisions applicable to Northeast or any part of India. The paragraph also clarifies that the reference of this case is confined to Article 370 and there is no commonality of interest between the IA and the main case.
LIVE LAW https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/article-370-case-wont-touch-special-provisions-for-north-eastern-states-or-other-parts-centre-tells-supreme-court-235956?infinitescroll=1
Name; Shreya Modanwal, Shambhunath Institute of Law, Jhalwa, Prayagraj, 3rd yr.student, intern under Legal Vidhiya
